A question to Todd and Salmo. We basically just got told to STFU if we're not willing to do the dirty research and figure out how each agency works with each other so that we can become educated about the issues before we even speak.

I know I don't have the time, energy, or even the mental capacity to sift thru all of that information and become educated enough to voice my opinion on all of these issues in a manner that will be persuasive enough to help try and effect any change. And if everyone of us on the board did read thru all the "information that is out there" and tried to comprehend all of the variables do you think we would become a more united and informed group or just a bunch of guys who again would have different opinions because of the way each of us would interpret that "information?"

I have nothing but respect for people such as Todd or Salmo and the many others who do put in the hard work behind the scenes so that folks like myself have decent opportunities to fish in this state. But the one thing that seems clear to me is that what has been happening within our state and the way many issues are being dealt with it just isn't working. Blame it on whatever you want but John Q fisherman/crabber/general outdoor enthusiast just SEEMS to be of very little importance to the people who run this state.

Respectfully, Dave

I'm no bio or expert, but if sardines are being overharvested doesn't that mean that whatever eats sardines (salmon, tuna, whales, seals, birds, whatever), are going to be eating more of the other prey/food species out their. Would that affect food available to Steelhead?? I would think so...
And where do the steelhead go when they hit the salt? Are they like salmon and head North? Are they being caught as bycatch in another fishery in the salt? Even if the sardine harvest is reduced in WA/OR if the fish aren't feeding there the majority of the time it wouldn't matter.
If the nets are in the Skagit system they are most certainly catching Nates now, I have talked to a number of my friends who have been getting Nates regularly up there. Yes it may not be the "main" run yet, but if the run is in trouble shouldn't any bycatch be a problem?? Not saying anything can be done with how things are now, but can it be changed.
For those of you who claim high poaching mortality on Nates and talk about lack of enforcement, would you care to float the river and take some pics and make some phone calls?? I'm willing and it looks like I will have some non-fishing free time on my hands in March and April. Good time for me to try out my toon and learn the river myself. Any one want to join me??

I really appreciate everyone passion on the topic and hope we can weed through the BS and egos and work together on a solution, and not just on the Skagit.

Peace,B

Wntrrn,

We're not telling you to STFU or asking you to do extensive research of any kind. Because it's been discussed so many times, anyone who reads this bulletin board regularly has already seen the information necessary to make an informed opinion. The proximate cause of depressed steelhead runs in PS (excluding HC) is poor marine, especially early marine, survival. That has been reported here more times than I can remember.

That's not to say that the roughly 200 - 400 wild steelhead (and that may be high) caught in tribal nets, or the harvest of sardines off the mouth of the Columbia are doing the Skagit steelhead any good. However, to introduce that sort of evidence as the cause of the Skagit closure is grade school logic. It's stupid in fact when the writer has better quality information at hand. That is why I jumped on a few of the posters in this thread.

It's fine to criticize the fish agencies - when you know WTF you're talking about. I do so often, as do others. But when the criticisms employ nothing better than grade school logic, or the layman's common sense as described by Farmed It in this thread, the speaker or writer identifies himself and uninformed or ignorant and loses any credibility they might have had with the managers who develop the policies and regulations.

As for parity, well, life ain't fair. The existence of US v WA is evidence of that. Some are complaining that the Skagit nets are presently catching some wild steelhead. They know that because of reports of sport caught wild steelhead this month. Those same writers conveniently ignore that some of those sport caught steelhead are subject to whatever rate of incidental mortality applies. And the tribes know it. Do you really think they would be persuaded to stop targeting the hatchery steelhead presently available just to avoid catching a relatively small number of wild fish? Especially when the sport fishery is out there doing exactly the same thing - albeit at a lower mortality rate? Refer again the first sentence in this paragraph - life ain't fair.

I strongly doubt that if all PP BB members review the same information that we would all reach the same conclusion because we already do review much of the same information and reach different conclusions. My contribution to this thread isn't creating any unity, so I should probably STFU.

Sg

What Sg said, +1.

Think the folks who aren't worried about things like facts and logic get disrespected here by me? Try taking those same "facts and logic" to the agencies that make the decisions...you don't really think that the managers who make the decisions will be swayed by ignorant arguments, do you?

Take this as advice...if you want to get those in charge to change their policies, whether it be through negotiation or litigation, the first thing you have to do is know what you are talking about.

All the unified passion in the world, if it is wrapped around false ideas and hopes, will do nothing but spend money and resources that are sorely needed elsewhere...it sure won't get one thing done with the courts or with the policymakers.

Fish on...

Todd

Everyone should try, Marsha...that's my point...but they should at least do a minimum of research to make sure that at least they and/or their representatives know what they are talking about...and this applies in both court and in negotiations.

In negotiations you'll just get ignored if you don't...in court it might actually cost you real money for wasting the taxpayers' time and money with ridiculous arguments.

No one should be discouraged from participating...but part of the duty of participation should be encouraging people to do a little research, too, so that their participation does some good, rather than harm.

Fish on...

Todd

Salmo, I tend to just lurk when some of these more heated threads pop up because I don't have the information necessary to form an educated opinion. For me to blame the lack of returns which are happening on the Skagit system on one thing or another would only prove just how ignorant I am. I appreciate the information many of you are able to pass on to this board that balances out our knee jerk reactions and finger pointing which in many cases is misguided.

The bottom line to many of us is that the situation we face in this state doesn't seem to be very optimistic. Take the chum return and the thread about commercials just hammering them in the salt while there didn't seem to be any fish returning to the rivers. Whether it was factual or not, stuff like that just seems to build in many of us and comes out as pure frustration.

The amount of money I spend on my recreational fishing in this state is substantial. Issues like this make me seriously consider getting back to my fishing basics. Selling my boats and most of my gear. Going back to a time when life was much more simple. A couple different wt fly rods and a few boxes of flies. When that time comes our state will see a serious decrease in the amount of money I spend in my recreational sportfishing pursuit and I am just one person who feels this way.

Does anyone care to address the question of WDFW timing? Todd or Salmo, do you know if the numbers were still being crunched late into the season and that is why the decision was just made? Couldn't this decision been made long ago since many are indicating the conditions in 2005 are a major factor in the numbers being low?

Thanks,
Kaiser D.

Kaiser,

From what I understand, the scale samples were taken last spring, and the numbers were shoved into an envelope and not even looked at until the end of December...the information about 2005 water conditions and 2005 smolt counts, they've had that for over two years.

It wouldn't have changed the numbers any, of course, but the closure could have been decided upon eight months ago just as easily.

Fish on...

Todd

Kaiser D.

Yeah, I think it could be done so the information was released sooner. There's a problem tho. Agencies have a large list of things they have to do each year, and most things have a time element attached to them. Consequently the tasks tend to get prioritized around when the work product is due or needed. So even tho all the information that feeds into this runsize prediction has been around for months or more, the final number crunching may have happened in the last few weeks. When the numbers spell out news like a closure that no one wants, it has to work up the chain of command, usually sitting on desks for days and weeks until the respective supervisor, manager, assistant director, etc. gets it to the top of his or her in box, and finally passes it to Koenings. Ergo, information frequently isn't available until just before, or just after, it's needed.

Sg

Salmo & Todd-
I am sorry if I in anyway contributed to the overall appearance of "not knowing what you are talking about." That being said I see issues that keep being dismissed as "non-consequencial" that I think are a concern for everybody. I sometimes wonder if those "in the know" really see what is going on as much as fisherman like JohnnyCoho, Robbo, and those of us casual fisherman that are on the river 150 days a year. And I am NOT referring to Todd and Salmo G on this one just management in general. Over half of the 60+ steelhead that I put in the boat this year had major net marks on them, yet I always hear the effects of netting disputed. Not trying to blame everything on the tribes, just trying to prove a point.

I think what most are pissed off about, same as me, is the same ole BS answers that are given everytime about why there are no fish, and consequently why we will have no fishery. Not everybody has the time or the mental capacity to comprehend all the info on this subject like Todd and Salmo. Thats why people like them are hired to manage the resource for us. When people don't get the results they want it's natural to complain. Just like working on a car or a computer. No one is capable of knowing everything (though some think they do) so most of us hire "experts" to say rebuild the motor in your truck. When the motor comes back and doesn't work right, the mechanic either fixes it or you fire your mechanic. The real problem in this case is that even if you don't like the results that are stuffed down your throat from the "experts," it does no good as they won't "fix" it and you can't fire them if you don't like the results.

So my question to the experts is this; it always seems like the commercials have politions in there back pockets. Seams to me that the sport fishing industry has more money than the commercials as a whole across the board. How do WE get the polititions in OUR back pockets??? Can we take them fishing, make campaign contributions, etc, etc etc?

Once again......if I am inaccurate in my rants please inform me and thanks for listening

Tim

TFF,

Neither Todd nor I or other experts will tell you that the gillnets are doing the fish any favors. If half the 60 fish you put in your boat had net marks, that only proves the fish encountered nets. Think about this, those fish ended up in your boat, not a gillnetter's, right? It seems to me that those fish didn't benefit any more from ending up in your boat than they would have in a gillnetter's boat.

I'm not sure what point you think you've proven. What's proven to me is that gillnets encounter a lot of steelhead, and the sportfishermen, taken as a fleet over the course of the season, also encounter a lot of steelhead. Only two things in that are important to me. Were the harvestable fish shared 50:50? And the sport fishery can have a far less impact on wild fish by carefully releasing them.

If it seems like the commercial industry has more political clout, it's because they organize better and present their position better to politicians. And they probably do some schmoozing and make some campaign contributions. It doesn't take a lot of money to influence a state legislator. A good interest and issues paper along with $2,000 or $3,000 to the campaign and they'll remember who you are and what is important to you. Sport fishing interests could do this. But we'd rather bitch on the internet instead of organizing effectively.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Noone is saying that. You have to look at the whole picture. Pure and simple some groups are focusing on the problems at the wrong time.

The first problem in this state was overharvest. We had hatcheries before we had dams. Who was responsible for the overharvest, white man or the tribes? If the state had required the spawning level of native fish to remain high, we would not need hatcheries. Mismanagement of hatcheries have been an ongoing problem. The assumption all fish were the same has hurt the other runs. Dams dont help fish. Culverts dont help fish. Dairies dont help fish. Islands full of birds dont help fish. Seals dont help fish.

We also have protection status for a lot of user groups and predators. That has to be dealt with. Planting more fish does not solve that problem.

When you have a user group, that wont police itself or and cans excess fish, which the govt will buy, they have no incentive to cut back the harvest. Its pretty clear, the state isnt interested in having a healthy crop of each salmon. They havent told the truth and they havent required the netters to live within the means of the resource.

Solve harvest issues
solve tribal issues
solve habitat issues
solve reproduction issues.

Dont muddy the water about what the tribes will or wont do. We have never been in the position, that list would put us in, with the tribes. Tribes did not have harvest, so they started at the top of the list. Now, they have harvest and they took the state to court for culverts. Sportsman dont have adequate harvest and we have to start at the top of the list. We cant start with the tribes, without looking like racists. We have to change the way the non tribals harvest and we have to control how much.

Commercial fisherman have a job, not a god given right to do that work forever at the demise of the resource and over the rights of other user groups. Noone can produce more fish, than the commercial netters will take.

Fish are a commodity. No different than trees or wheat or corn. There are more people using that and prices reflect that. Govt does not take any other crop, to my knowledge and divide it up between the users. Fish are the only crop that is being selectively distributed for the benefit of one user over another. The total harvest between all the groups have been too high, since the day it was discovered. They want to treat fish like an apple orchard or a corn field and its not working.

Link to Gamefish

check this out

Salmo-
I guess the biggest point that I was trying to make is that many issues are viewed as being "not that much of a problem" because of innacuracy in numbers or perception of a matter relating to the recovery of salmon and steelhead. Points proving this are things like the article that Bob posted the other day concerning numbers of fish on the reds that were counted that were really not there for the purpose of inflating the run size prediction so more harvest could take place. The tribes saying they netted way less fish than they actually did etc etc. Sorry if I didn't illustrate my point very well......not a great writer like some. Get an idea in my head and it just doesn't come out right sometimes. Hell....this probably didn't either.

One of my biggest problems with the process is that it seams like the "other" user groups in these discussions don't seam to be held to the same level of accountability as the sport fishing community. When we have a quota for a certain fishery and it is fullfilled we have the season shut down with little notice. Is anybody actually monitering the commercial/tribal end of the harvest or do we just take for granted the numbers that they report to us?

After reading the little thread over on Gamefishin.......even if we do end up having a c & r season, hopefully this will serve as a wakeup call for all of our fisheries and serve to motivate people to become more active in the political end of our sport and not take this all for granted. I really think we hold more cards than we think we do.....we just need to play them correctly as a team. 4 aces in 4 different poker hands are not nearly as powerful as 4 aces in the SAME hand.

Tim

NEWS FLASH>>>>>>>>>

This just in to "NW Wild Country" Central: fisheries managers have backed off published reports that the March/April catch-and-release steelhead season on the Skagit and Sauk systems would be cancelled.

As of this writing (4:05 p.m.), the catch-and-release seasons on the Skagit and Sauk remain as they're defined in the 2007-2008 Sportfishing Regulations pamphlet. Re-thinking among fish policy makers in Olympia have rendered innacurate the information published in the Everett Herald (and discussed on other threads on this board).

The official/unofficial word on the fishery: "It's up in the air." That from biologiest Brett Barkdull.

This is developing even as I write this. More tonight, and CERTAINLY more tomorrow on "NW Wild Country" (6 to 8 a.m. on Sportsradio 950 KJR AM/online at http://www.950kjr.com)

JS


Off another BB

c/22

Steelspanker,

Not trying to speak for Todd, but I'm sure we both agree that ending gillnetting of the LCR would be the first major advance in LCR fish management in about 100 years. Maybe CCA can help with that; maybe not; we don't know. If they head that direction, they'll have more help than they know what to do with (I hope). Ending non-treaty gillnetting in PS won't do much for conservation and may occasionally make a few more fish available for sport harvest, but not enough to be worth the effort - thinking in terms of bang for the buck and hours expended. Ending the HC gillnet and purse seine fishery might do more for conservation. I'm not sure. I don't have enough information to make an informed estimate. But a lot of wild chum and coho are caught in the hatchery chum wipe out fishery there. I guess I'm advising that we organize and expend our collective energies where it will really do the most good.

Sg

I sort of echo Steelspanker and TFF -- in that I think the biggest problem is our overall disorganization. We're harder to organize than the commercials or tribes, probably largely due to two related factors:

a) There's more of us (more opinions, more geographical diversity, etc)
b) We each have, on average, a smaller stake in this issue (i.e. for an average commercial fisherman, his entire livelihood is perhaps tied up in these issues).

Thus the tribal and non-tribal commercial groups are far better organized than us. IMO, the single best thing we as a group can do is choose/elect some representatives from our own community and support them. This should be a fulltime job of some group of smart, well-educated people. If indeed the financial impact of sportfishing is as big as we all think it is, then the fishermen, the tackle companies, the guides, and the retailers should *all* be supporting folks like this... Because 3 super well informed, well spoken, people who are at least reasonably connected politically (position papers/campaign contributions as Salmo G says), speaking on behalf of 1000's of us SEEMS like the right approach to me. Folks like this need our financial and other explicit support (e.g. our membership in organizations which give them clout). We in turn need to decide that being UNITED is more important than each of our pet opinions/theories. We should elect people to help us, and we should empower them to do their job.

At least to me, this seems far more effective than 20 of us showing up and speaking our piece. DO NOT get me wrong, 20 of us showing up and speaking our piece is 100x better than nothing, but I've been to meetings where the public speak, and at least it seems to me that we'd be well served by having *experts* speak on our behalf. Sad anecdotes about how you can't fish on the river your grandfather taught you to fish on are nice, but it's a little like bringing a knife to a gunfight if you ask me.

So I'm not smart or experienced enough to know why CCA is or isn't the right group, but at least if you ask me their approach vaguely matches what I'm saying here -- get orgainzed, get members, and put smart people in front of politicans. If they're the wrong group, then let's try to identify someone who is, and help them organize.

i'm sure there are a bunch of lurkers that have the same question i do as a person that wants to help but has other more important to me things to deal with in normal life then being totally up to date on fish issues
i don't fish the sauk or skagit or even the columbia,actually i only fish a few times a year anymore but i understand we need to stand together to fix any of this
the tribal thing pisses me off but i realize it's fish first even if i can't fish for them so that is my priority
i have $$$ albeit small that i would like to use to help as meetings and public speaking are not my gig(like you couldn't tell) but i need a avenue that is unilaterally ok'd
i see a bunch of folks are backing this cca and yet other folks are implying its a waste of funds?
so? i ask you guys/gals that have mucho hours in this fight to direct simple people like myself to the best bang for the buck so it will matter

lol you posted this while i was typing
exactly my sentiments

Very Well put Irishrogue...